VikkiM

James, I think posts like your last one are just dishonest. You know as well as I do that money needs to be put into council reserves to deal with the very real possibility of further cuts coming from your government. Southwark's existing reserves are in no way excessive. It's just as easy for me to post that that the One O?Clock Club is at risk because Nick Clegg and your party sold their political principles for the price of a ministerial car. The simple truth is that Southwark has had one of the biggest cuts in budget in London and we?re doing our very best to protect services. Peckham Rye?s Labour Councillors are 100% committed to having the best quality services for our children. That?s why we?ve fought so hard to secure the capital investment for the One O?Clock Club. Despite our run ins I am completely genuine when I say that Gavin, Renata and I would warmly welcome your help and support in protecting East Dulwich/Peckham Rye services that are used by East Dulwich ward residents as much as they are used by Peckham Rye ward residents. Your record on the council is much better than the silly post above. Cllr Victoria Mills Labour Councillor For Peckham Rye Ward [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com

As Gavin and Renata have said we?ve been meeting with the Cabinet and council officers about the club. As I?m sure some people will be aware, the council has two budgets. A ?revenue? budget that covers the cost of running things and a ?capital? budget that covers the cost of building things (I?m simplifying but hope that broadly makes sense). There is money in the capital budget to rebuild the One O?Clock Club. However the details of any rebuild aren?t going to be finalised until it?s clearer how much of the council?s revenue can be spent on running the Club after next April. Obviously we?ve had huge cuts in our revenue budget as a result of Government cuts so we have to make savings across the board. Some of you may have picked up the decision earlier this week that the council will be keeping all its libraries open. This does involve a reduction in opening hours at four of our libraries and some volunteers will also be used. Combined with some other bits of re-jigging we?ve been able to find a way to make ?400K of savings without closing any libraries down. I hope that?s a good indication of how determined all councillors (and happy to be cross-party on this!) are to keep well-used and well-loved services open. We asked Cabinet Members to investigate a whole range of things when we met in August and as Gavin says above, we said that we would like to talk to parents and the community in October (now). One of us will hopefully post on here with an update asap. Cllr Victoria Mills Labour Councillor For Peckham Rye Ward [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com

Apologies Trinity - the proposals weren't 'any day' but I do have an update. The big ?400K scheme for FHR has looked at the Colyton/FHR/Dunstans signals and it proposes retaining the signals but making some changes to the phasing to speed up the flow of traffic. The work suggests that this would improve the traffic flow and ensure traffic would move in one green light phase without queues building up. Removing the signals was looked at but the investigation suggests that this would disadvantage pedestrians and make it difficult for traffic to exit the side roads - particularly Colyton. The FHR scheme will be the subject of public consultation in September and October and so this consultation will include the proposal to retain the signals but make phasing changes. If residents object to the retention of the lights (even with changes) then I suspect then there is a strong possibility that they will be removed. The investigation work does support their retention but it doesn't consider their removal hugely problematic - if that makes sense. This FHR scheme is very likely to be discussed at a Community Council meeting - I'll post details of that and the consultation document when it's published. Vikki. Cllr Victoria Mills Labour Councillor For Peckham Rye Ward [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com

Dear All The bollards and the sub-station have been paid for through CGS money - the idea being that this area got a bit of a revamp. The bollard painting has been put on hold (rather than cancelled) because Forest Hill Road is going to be the subject of ?400K improvements over 2011/12 and 2012/13 (TfL money) and this might make other improvements to the pavement area outside the shops. I'm meeting the with Public Realm Officer (in charge of the ?400K scheme) and the CGS Officer (in charge to the ?20K scheme) next week to see whether we can make an decision about the bollards going ahead asap, safe in the knowledge they won't be changed soon afterwards, or alternatively whether we can incorporate some/all of the bollards or some of the artist's designs in whatever improvements might be made by the bigger scheme. I'll update as soon as we've had the meeting. Vikki. Cllr Victoria Mills Labour Councillor For Peckham Rye Ward [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com

Hi Trinity Thanks for the PM about this - thought I would reply here. Around the time that Nunhead and Peckham Rye Community Council were asked to make a decision about the removal/retention of these lights it became clear that the council was going to secure approx ?400K from TfL for improvements to Forest Hill Road. This money will be spent in 2011-12 but we asked officers to bring forward some of the spend to look at this junction in particular and also the impact on surrounding roads. This would have been looked at anyway but it seemed silly to potentially remove the lights only for the junction to be changed again in 2011-12. The officers have been in touch a couple of times in the last few weeks and I'm expecting some proposals any day. If the lights are removed Thames Water agreed to still honour the cost of their removal even though it has been delayed. Victoria Mills. Labour Member for Peckham Rye Ward [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com

Very quickly (apologies as I'm on the way to bed...) The Zebra crossing at Harris Girls is waiting for EDF (I think) to connect up the electrics. I've been told it should happen very soon. Actually paid for by Harris in the end I think. I will ask about what else could be done at start/end of school day. Have read comments for and against on here and have also been sent a variety of comments sent through to council officers. Victoria Mills Labour Member for Peckham Rye Ward [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com

Hi all Couple of posts about the One O'Clock Club from the General page: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,336529,528528#msg-528528 Getting a rebuild/refurbishment of the club is something that we are pressing for and if we get it, then I think it would make sense if the new building was used more. As James says, it will be difficult to make a case for additional spend (in terms of running costs) when we are faced with cuts to budgets but something run by parents might be an option. I'm hoping to have another meeting about the future of the club in the next few weeks and after the spending review (central government, 20 Oct) the council's budget for next year will become a little clearer. Myself, Gavin and Renata (other Peckham Rye cllrs) would be very happy to meet parents to chat about what might be possible. I don't want to create loads of expectation - there isn't much money so it's probably best to be honest and say that's the case. But on other hand, if we as councillors and community can think creatively I'm sure we can come up with something! If there is interest, I'll find out when the next meeting is likely to be and perhaps meeting some time after that would allow us to come prepared/knowing a little more? Cllr Victoria Mills Labour Member for Peckham Rye Ward T: 07535932318 E: [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com www.twitter.com/victoria_mills

On the One O'Clock Club it does seem like a lot but I suspect that the maintenance costs are a large drain on the budget and I understand from officers that they are expected to increase, hardly surprising when the building was build to house PoWs 70 years ago! This is one of the reasons why the rebuild, although costly, is what we need. I've just spotted the post in the family room about this and it seems parents getting together to run sessions at the club is being discussed. Certainly, this, or other volunteers running morning sessions could be an option. Cllr Victoria Mills Labour Member for Peckham Rye Ward T: 07535932318 E: [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com www.twitter.com/victoria_mills

Hi Marmora Man I'm the Chair of the Nunhead and Peckham Rye Community Council and I can assure you that no decision has been made. The next meeting is at Rye Oak Primary school. To date, the council officers have made a recommendation to all of the Community Council members (nine in total, not just me as) and together we need to agree whether we accept the recommendation or not. I've been in touch with Philip Murphy and other officers to raise various queries I have with their recommendation. I'll also now see whether I can get hold of the for and against views that you mention have been received. Unlike James, I've only received a couple of emails about this to date. It may be that it's less of a concern for residents in the immediate vicinity (Peckham Rye ward) and more of concern for those further away as it's dispersing traffic on to other (East Dulwich ward) streets. This isn't something covered in detail in the report but it sounds like it should have been. If there are further views out there I'm happy to hear them and to share them with the other community council members. Cllr Victoria Mills Labour Member for Peckham Rye Ward T: 07535932318 E: [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com www.twitter.com/victoria_mills

Hi Fushia On the One O'Clock Club James makes a very reasonable point about future spending. Sadly! The One O'Clock Club needs rebuilding/refurbishing (some money set aside but more needed, probably around ?300K) and in addition it costs in the region of ?100K a year to run it on current opening hours. However, along with Gavin and Renata (other Peckham Rye councillors) I've just been at a meeting about the club and morning opening was one of the things discussed. We're hoping to have another meeting in the coming weeks and we've asked to see details of what-would-cost-what and how realistic additional opening might be. I don't think anything will change in the immediate future but just wanted to let you know that, despite the current financial constraints, we are trying to see what can be done. Cllr Victoria Mills Labour Member for Peckham Rye Ward T: 07535932318 E: [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com www.twitter.com/victoria_mills

For goodness sake James what a silly response! If you click on the link to the 2007 postings it would seem that the Lib Dem council didn?t make a clear promise, rather the Lib Dem council ensured that there was an option that the lights could be retained. And at this stage it isn?t possible to disagree with the Labour councillors because this one certainly hasn?t made up her mind! As I say above, I am very keen to know what residents think so PM or email or post on here and happy to raise with Council officers before the decision is taken whilst also trying to ensure I don't get carried away with the 'abstract'... SteveT/Vickster - thanks for the info. Cllr Victoria Mills Labour Member for Peckham Rye Ward T: 07535932318 E: [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com Peckham Rye News Facebook Group www.twitter.com/victoria_mills

Hello all, A decision will be taken on whether to retain the traffic signals and crossing facilities or to remove the traffic signals, and revert back to the former zebra crossing in October ? possibly September, I?m just trying to confirm. A independent safety report has been carried out on the junction and this recommends the retention of the facilities. Council officers are endorsing this position. I?ve read through the safety report and some of the keys things seem to be that: - Southwark?s road user hierarchy recognises the 'primary importance' of pedestrians. In this case, it seems that the retention of the current facilities would be better for them. - If the traffic signals were to be removed there would, at busy times, be significantly more delay to side road (Dunstans/Colyton) traffic - so it?s the Forest Hill Road traffic that will be the main benefactors of the removal of the signals. - These delays might increase possibility that drivers emerging from the side road would force their way out into the main road at inappropriate times, making accidents more likely. I?ve raised a few queries about the report, not least that it does not seem to bear in mind that the pattern of road and pedestrian use might change once Harris Boys opens. There are also some recommendations in the report about re-phasing the traffic lights, changing signage and ?street furniture? and possibly relocating the crossing on Forest Hill Road so I?ll also try to find out whether these improvements will go ahead if the lights are retained. I?d also like to know exactly what was said back in 2007. The impression that I?ve been given is that, whilst the lights were temporary it was agreed that there would be a review of how good/bad they were before a decision was made to remove them. From comments on here, it seems that this wasn?t what residents were told, or at least it wasn?t made very clear. On the bumps these have gone back and the 20mph signs have been retained ? I understand that notwithstanding a decision on the junction this was always the plan. Keen to know what you think so PM or email or post on here and I'm happy to raise with Council officers before the decision is taken. Cllr Victoria Mills Labour Member for Peckham Rye Ward T: 07535932318 E: [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com Peckham Rye News Facebook Group www.twitter.com/victoria_mills

Trident and tuition fees were great election sound bites too... funny how quickly they were disposed of ;-) Many people will be aware that the Tories and Libs have already cut back free school meal provision to 500,000 children as part of the cuts package announced on 24 May. Proposals to cap provision at a certain number or to impose stricter means testing are now being discussed so it's very possible this service will be cut back further. The consequences of these cuts to some of the poorest children in our community are horrific. That a Labour council could step in and reverse some of this is money worth spending in my opinion. If we don't, I don't know how the coalition government will meet its child poverty commitments. On meals on wheels, Southwark has some of the most deprived communities in London and, as a result, has a history of low charges for those additional services such as meals on wheels that many vulnerable and older people rely on. In addition, the increases in prices made under the Libs didn't actually generate any extra revenue - people just opted out of the service. The whole point of the policy being pursued was presumably to marginalise the service to such an extent that it could just be got rid of under the guise that nobody really needed the service anymore. Victoria Mills Labour Councillor for Peckham Rye ward [email protected] www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com T: 07535932318

Hi SimonM This is in Peckham Rye ward. We raised a few queries about this junction recently so I'll also ask about dropped pavements. Victoria. Labour Councillor for Peckham Rye ward [email protected] T: 07535932318

There was a recent application to change it into a cafe/restaurant but this was turned down. I think the primary concern was pressure on parking but there were also concerns expressed by residents about noise and I think there was a ventilation duct that wasn't considered very sympathetic to the design of the building (this predates me as a councillor so apologies that I'm not 100% sure of the details...) I understand from council officers that a new application has been submitted. It should be on the planning section of the council website shortly. Victoria. Labour Councillor for Peckham Rye ward [email protected] T: 07535932318

I understand that the figure for Peckham Rye is 17. I have asked where they live and am keen to see the geographical spread of those allocated their 4th choice. However, I would hazard a guess that most of these are located around the junction of Forest Hill Road and Colyton Road. The change over of administration is making it difficult to get clear advice or information - apologies. However, the best advice I have in terms of the immediate few days is probably what you are all already doing: Contact the admissions team and establish where you are on the waiting list - this information is available from today (yesterday now....) You can also find out the distance of the furthest child admitted and how many children were admitted under the siblings rule as well as your distance from the school. This will give you a bit more information to help you assess how likely you think it is that you will secure a place. I would then keep in regular touch with the team to see how the waiting lists are moving. I'd be interested to know if anyone has had an improved offer from Lewisham given that parents should have accepted or rejected by 5th May? Any 'shake down' of Lewisham places should hopefully help our area. Several parents have posted specific queries on here or sent them to me via email. I have passed most of these on and will get back to you but am keen to prioritise getting the best advice to parents for the coming days and weeks and to see what the council can do to get the waiting lists moving. Victoria. Labour Councillor for Peckham Rye ward [email protected] T: 07535932318

Absolutely delighted to be elected as a Peckham Rye councillor on Thursday alongside Gavin and Renata. I very much hope that tomorrow's allocations go smoothly and the great majority of parents get a place at their first choice school. As the strength of feeling on the allocations was such a big issue on the doorstep I'm also keen that the new Labour administration does all it can in the coming days and weeks to deal with any queries or problems. If you live in Peckham Rye and have a problem with your allocation please do email your councillors on [email protected] (we are yet to get Southwark emails) or give me a ring on 07867782964. Best wishes, Victoria. Peckham Rye Labour

I think that the measure used in the UK is anyone living with a household income of less than 60% of the median income after housing costs. I think that would be a household income of around ?13,000 so basically not very much. As Loz says, I think that some measurements take into account the number of children you have. The UK measurement is a measure of 'relative poverty' and as the median is used, the poverty line will rise if inequality grows. 'Absolute poverty' would be the same across all countries and would be essentially having nothing. If you wanted to try to put a figure on this in income terms it would be living on less than $1.25 a day.

Smiler I don't really know why the Heber announcement has been made before the full allocations are announced but if the Headteacher felt this was the best way to reassure existing parents I wouldn't want to question that. However, if the location of bulge classes has now been agreed, I do think it would be helpful if the council made a clear statement on this - i.e. we are having X number of bulge classes which will be located in X, Y and Z locations. Obviously it's widely known that Labour is opposed to the delay in allocations but given that we are where we are the most important thing now is that the council is clear and considerate in its communication otherwise it will simply cause confusion and worry for parents. That's exactly what happened last year and exactly what we were promised wouldn't happen this year. So, it would be good to know that Heber is the location of the East Dulwich bulge class this year, that this is the only bulge happening and these additional places will ensure that East Dulwich children will get a place at a local school. However I'm worried that in fact there may well be more bulges and the ad hoc announcement of them just leaves parents thinking that the council doesn't really know what its doing. The following information isn't up to date (and I don't want to cause panic, worry etc.) but back in October the council identified schools where temporary or permanent bulges could be located. Temporary (i.e. it could take a one bulge class for the duration of its passage through the school) were Heber, St. Johns and St. Clements, Bessemer Grange, Ivydale, Rye Oak, Dulwich Village and Dulwich Hamlet and Dog Kennel Hill. Permanant expansions were possible at Lyndhurst (from 1.5 to 2FE ? I understand this is happening), St. Anthony?s RC (from 1.5 to 2FE ? requires extension, not sure what the latest is but they have certainly consulted about the expansion), Langbourne (from 1 to 2FE ? in existing accommodation), Oliver Goldsmith (from 2 to 3FE ? in existing accommodation), Bellenden (from 1 to 2FE ? requires extension), St. Mary Magdalene (from 1 to 2FE - requires extension) and previous plans that Hollydale should reduce from 1.5 to 1FE would now be kept under review. So, to some extent, the possibility that Heber would have a bulge class has been known for some time. I've posted about primary school shortages on the forum several times so readers will probably know my frustrations with the council on this. At the risk of being repetitive I have to say that I fail to understand the logic of James' arguments about the 'scenario planning' and getting more kids to their 1st choice school causing the delay in allocations until 10 May. There isn't a full moon or similar in the first week of May that will magically sort out all the problems. All the work that is needed to run different scenarios could have been done at an earlier date. It's a question of allocating the resources so that the admissions team could carry out the work quicker. Either this is a top priority for the council or it isn't. We were promised extra permanent staff in the admissions team in October. They arrived in March. That's simply not on. I also fail to understand how we could be promised improved communications with both Lewisham and Lambeth yet somehow the situation of parents having to accept or reject Lewisham places by 5th May, and the difficulty this would cause, wasn't discussed. I'm also bemused that the councils didn't have a discussion about the differing advice they had received about giving out allocations during purdah. Surely a short conversation between the legal officers could have resolved this. So far we seem to have been offered four different reasons for the delay - increasing first choices and different scenario planning, we need to have bulge classes but Lewisham doesn?t, schools admissions staff are needed to run the elections and Purdah. I'm not convinced by any! Victoria Peckham Rye Labour

Smiler (apologies if I'm repeating what Fushia and other have stated above) but I'm sure that the additional places at Heber will be allocated according to the usual admissions criteria: (i) Looked after children (ii) Children who will have brothers or sisters attending the school at their time of entry (iii) Where professional evidence indicates that there are particular psychological, medical or social needs which the local authority and headteacher agree can best be addressed at the school (iv) Children for whom it is their nearest Southwark community school measured by straight line route from home to main school gate (v) Children living nearest the school measured by straight line route from home to main school gate James also notes that the admissions part of the Heber letter is wrong. It may be, by coincidence, that all the places will go to people who put down Heber as their first choice. I think there is a high probability of this as many parents make their 1st choice the school they already have children at or their nearest community school (especially true after last year's shortage of places). As I understand it, if you put Heber down as your second choice but don't secure a place your first choice school, your application to Heber would be judged on the criteria above. fearnpw1 my understanding would be that schools wouldn't be told about what you have put on your application form. The allocations procedure is carried out by the council's admissions team. Last Autumn, the council set out its decision to have 'bulge' classes and it identified those schools which might have the space to have bulge classes and which were located where demand was high. I guess there has been a process of dicussion/neogication between the council and local schools and headteachers about their school having a bulge class. The fact that Heber is very oversubscribed and lots of people have put it down as a first choice will probably have been mentioned. I've probably simplied the detail of what's happened but that would be my rough reading of the letter. Victoria Peckham Rye Labour Edited to say that information about criteria (iii) would be shared with school but am fairly sure preference stuff wouldn't be.

I'm sure we're all guilty of a few typos and grammatical errors :-$ As an aside I'm fairly sure that Harris Boys already has governors as it's already open (just on a different site). I remember Southwark council recruiting them probably about a year ago now. Though it's possible they will look for more community governors when the school moves to the new site. Victoria Peckham Rye Labour

Hi Old Yeller which bumpf is this? The Southwark Labour Manifesto has plenty of stuff on a whole host of issues for East Dulwich and the rest of the borough. On shopping parades lots of people supported the Peckham Rye Labour petition to tidy up Forest Hill Road. (happy to have have one bumpf thread) Victoria Peckham Rye Labour

James what a load of rot and scaremongering you have managed to come up with! What Lambeth and Southwark Labour have pledged is to hold a summit meeting of senior council officers to see how the boroughs might work together to give residents a better and more consistent service and to see if we can save some money. Whoever wins the council this time is not going to be blessed with the 37% increase in grant from central government that you have enjoyed since 2002. As Eileen rightly points out people who live on borough boundaries often get a raw deal. I see this all the time in Peckham Rye ward where we have a long boundary with Lewisham. You yourself are part of the scrutiny committee that sensibly committed to work more closely with Lewisham and Lambeth over primary school places this year following last year?s chaos. Once primary school applications are done on a common form next year could we work more closely together? Lambeth?s central schools team is better staffed and better-rated than Southwark?s. Many children cross borough boundaries to go to school. Would closer working therefore be such a terrible thing? Our council tax collection is currently done (badly) by a private company based in Bromley ? that?s not much of a localised service. After a long campaign by Labour to bring it back in house the Lib Dems and Tories are finally committed to doing this. Is this the kind of back office service that boroughs could do together? It?s also worth pointing out that whilst Lambeth is officially the fastest improving council in the country. Southwark is the worst run council in inner London and has the worst council housing in London. Both boroughs have much to do to improve and I think any working together would be much more about co-operation (and sharing expertise as PeckhamRose points out) rather than centralisation. Over the weekend several residents have also mentioned the unpleasant undertones of your leaflet about these plans. Whilst I do think you are talking a lot of nonsense I?m very sure that this was not intended by you and your colleagues. However, I do think the tone of your leaflet shows a real lack of judgement. Rather than continuing with your unremittingly negative campaigning, where are your leaflets setting out your eight years of achievement and improvement in Southwark? Where is your local manifesto setting out your agenda and vision for the next four years? Victoria. Peckham Rye Labour

Wow that's long... apologies :-$

I don?t think James' explanation washes at all. In fact he is on the forum giving a different explanation for the delay here. One of the problems that became clear last year was that Southwark had less staff in its admissions teams than other neighbouring councils and this had probably contributed to some of the confusion and poor communication. At the scrutiny meeting held last October (which some forumites attended) we were given assurances that three extra permanent staff would be appointed to the admissions team to help ensure a smoother admissions procedure this year. Following various enquiries by Labour councillors I understand that these extra staff were still not in place in February and were not expected to be in place until March. Additional support was instead being provided by some temporary agency staff ? the very ?inexperienced? staff James now claims he doesn't want administering the process. On ?cuts? this strikes me as a throw away comment especially as the council put out a press release back in January promising, from memory, a further four or five staff for the admissions team so clearly there is a plan to find the money from somewhere at some point. I?m afraid I think the decision is deeply cynical. However, although I?m very angry about this I also keen not to cause parents any additional worry to that they may already feel about the admissions process. There were problems last year but I think the great response of parents to do their applications online and on time will have helped the process. I also think there is money and some planning in place to allow for ?bulge? classes at local schools to help cope with the high ratio of children to school places in our area. And whilst I don?t for one second want to say everything will be okay, I have found a huge level of anxiety from parents many of whom, if you look at how close they live to schools and the distance of last year?s further child admitted, should be pretty confident about getting a place at their local school. Of course this isn?t true for everyone and there are definitely some areas where parents and children may be more reliant on the ?bulge? classes. For me there are three strong arguments for sticking with the usual date, or if anything to have worked to get allocations out on an earlier date this year. The first is that with the strong likelihood of bulge classes in local schools it would allow schools a few more weeks to prepare and would help ensure that schools and children were ready for the start of the new year. Last year I think the Headteacher at Goodrich missed most of her summer holiday. If you are trying to find additional teachers in June or July you don?t always end up with the pick of the best teachers. There is ?12million sat in a council bank account to build permanent new classrooms or to refit old ?mothballed? rooms ? I?m keen that we get this spent. Secondly, I think that sticking to an April date would have concentrated the Lib Dems? and council officers? minds to get the process right this year. Knowing the election would take place a few weeks later would have ensured that the promised extra permanent staff were in place much earlier and that council resources were spent on something that is clearly important to our area. I imagine every application would have been double-checked and that every parent who phoned with a problem in April would have been dealt with swiftly and politely. Of course, it shouldn?t have to be this way but the reality is that an April date would have ensured a ?gold star? service that I worry a May date may not. Finally ? the knock on effect on neighbouring boroughs that others have mentioned, with some parents holding on to two or three places or other perhaps not getting their Lewisham choice then having added worried about their Southwark places. Victoria Peckham Rye Labour (Just a typo edited 'of' to 'or'...)